Re: [PATCH 18/18] ipu3: Add driver for dummy INT3472 ACPI device

[Daniel Scally <djrscally@xxxxxxxxx>]

On 09/01/2021 09:17, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Saturday, January 9, 2021, Daniel Scally <djrscally@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>> Hi Andy
>>
>> On 08/01/2021 12:17, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
>>> On Fri, Jan 8, 2021 at 1:56 AM Daniel Scally <djrscally@xxxxxxxxx>
>> wrote:
>>>> On 30/11/2020 20:07, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
>>>>> On Mon, Nov 30, 2020 at 01:31:29PM +0000, Daniel Scally wrote:
>>> ...
>>>
>>>>> It's solely Windows driver design...
>>>>> Luckily I found some information and can clarify above table:
>>>>>
>>>>> 0x00 Reset
>>>>> 0x01 Power down
>>>>> 0x0b Power enable
>>>>> 0x0c Clock enable
>>>>> 0x0d LED (active high)
>>>>>
>>>>> The above text perhaps should go somewhere under Documentation.
>>>> Coming back to this; there's a bit of an anomaly with the 0x01 Power
>>>> Down pin for at least one platform.  As listed above, the OV2680 on one
>>>> of my platforms has 3 GPIOs defined, and the table above gives them as
>>>> type Reset, Power down and Clock enable. I'd assumed from this table
>>>> that "power down" meant a powerdown GPIO (I.E. the one usually called
>>>> PWDNB in Omnivision datasheets and "powerdown" in drivers), but the
>>>> datasheet for the OV2680 doesn't list a separate reset and powerdown
>>>> pin, but rather a single pin that performs both functions.
>>> All of them are GPIOs, the question here is how they are actually
>>> connected on PCB level and I have no answer to that. You have to find
>>> schematics somewhere.
>> Yeah; I've been trying to get those but so far, no dice.
>>
>>
> Can you share the exact name / model of the hardware in question here? I
> would try to search for the schematics.
Lenovo Miix 510-12ISK 80U1 - I also tried asking Lenovo for them but
that didn't really go anywhere; but of course I'm just contacting their
usual support line and explaining what I'm after, so I didn't really
expect it to.
>
>
>>>> Am I wrong to treat that as something that ought to be mapped as a
>>>> powerdown GPIO to the sensors? Or do you know of any other way to
>>>> reconcile that discrepancy?
>>> The GPIOs can go directly to the sensors or be a control pin for
>>> separate discrete power gates.
>>> So, we can do one of the following:
>>>  a) present PD GPIO as fixed regulator;
>>>  b) present PD & Reset GPIOs as regulator;
>>>  c) provide them as is to the sensor and sensor driver must do what it
>>> considers right.
>>>
>>> Since we don't have schematics (yet?) and we have plenty of variations
>>> of sensors, I would go to c) and update the driver of the affected
>>> sensor as needed. Because even if you have separate discrete PD for
>>> one sensor on one platform there is no guarantee that it will be the
>>> same on another. Providing a "virtual" PD in a sensor that doesn't
>>> support it is the best choice I think. Let's hear what Sakari and
>>> other experienced camera sensor developers say.
>>>
>>> My vision is purely based on electrical engineering background,
>>> experience with existing (not exactly camera) sensor drivers and
>>> generic cases.
>> Alright; thanks. I'm happy with C being the answer, so unless someone
>> thinks differently I'll work on that basis.
>>
>>
> Laurent answered that it is not the best choice from camera sensor driver
> perspective.
Yep, seen - no problem. I will look at doing it via the method he suggests.